It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
LOS ANGELES — Firebrand Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio's requirement that jail inmates wear pink underwear may be unconstitutional when applied to prisoners who have not been convicted of a crime, a federal appeals court said on Wednesday.
Two members of a three-judge appeal panel raised the issue while ruling for the majority in a related lawsuit against Arpaio and Maricopa County. But they stopped short of striking down the pink-underwear practice, saying it had not been formally challenged by plaintiffs in the case.
Pink underwear for male jail inmates is famously part of the tough stance against crime taken by Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County who has come under fire by the U.S. Justice Department for a crackdown on illegal immigration that the government said involved racial profiling.
"Unexplained and undefended, the dress-out in pink appears to be punishment without legal justification," 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Noonan wrote for the majority.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
It has nothing to do with a "tough stance" on crime. Everything that man does is about ego, power, and showmanship. What makes better press copy? Pink underwear and green bologna or hard core work duties? In many ways I see Arpaio as a poor man's J Edgar especially in regards to his showmanship and duplicity.
Pink underwear for male jail inmates is famously part of the tough stance against crime taken by Arpaio,